Federal Judge Upholds Cancellation Of 'Redskins' Trademarks

[GagHalfrunt]

This is really confusing. While I feel that this is a dangerous legal decision in that almost anyone can claim to be offended by almost anything and this allows old and inoffensive trademarks to be vacated almost on a whim, I like seeing Dan Snyder get the screws put to him. I just wish there was a way it could have been done that was less PC nanny-state bullshit.

 

[lupi]

No, a melting pot is a great idea, it made us incredibly creative and strong country.

It's the thin-skinned limp-wristed bed-wetting bleeding-heart pussies that America is apparently creating nowadays who are fucking everything up.

michael douglas agrees on the becoming pussy part.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/michael-douglas-american-actors-too-asexual-and-123634683807.html

 

[GrumpyMan]

I've always associated the term "Redskins" with a football team since I was a child and not with Native Americans. Let's hope the term "Light Beer" will not be outlawed by fatties who are offended.

 

[xBiffx]

I've always associated the term "Redskins" with a football team since I was a child and not with Native Americans. Let's hope the term "Light Beer" will not be outlawed by fatties who are offended.

I'd be more worried about "Dark Beer" given the world we live in.

 

[zinfamous]

no matter what their team name is, one thing is certain - they are going to suck as usual this year.

 

[KeithTalent]

I've always associated the term "Redskins" with a football team since I was a child and not with Native Americans. Let's hope the term "Light Beer" will not be outlawed by fatties who are offended.

My tastebuds are offended by light beer, so I will be lobbying like a motherfucker to get that shit banned.

KT

 

[zinfamous]

No, a melting pot is a great idea, it made us incredibly creative and strong country.

It's the thin-skinned limp-wristed bed-wetting bleeding-heart pussies that America is apparently creating nowadays who are fucking everything up.

This country was never a melting pot.

It's a salad, if anything. All cultures and skins and likenesses still segregate themselves within their gated communities or apartment buildings or historic immigrant neighborhoods or white-flight suburban towns, etc.

 

[zinfamous]

I've always associated the term "Redskins" with a football team since I was a child and not with Native Americans. Let's hope the term "Light Beer" will not be outlawed by fatties who are offended.

"Light Beer" is offensive to beer and actual beer drinkers. ....I think the entire concept should be abolished in the name of good taste.

 

[KeithTalent]

"Light Beer" is offensive to beer and actual beer drinkers. ....I think the entire concept should be abolished in the name of good taste.

KT

 

[Perknose]

Did I say that my argument does not apply? No. It does. I just find it odd that there are so many people crying foul over the redskins logo (which at least arguably portrays an indian warrior in a positive light), yet we hear relatively little about the Cleveland Indian's logo, which portrays what can only be described as a caricature.

The Atlanta Braves used to have Chief Nok-a-homa come out of his tee pee and celebrate home runs. ()

The kid was called, I shit you not, Hit-a-single.

 

[zinfamous]

KT

we can talk shit about Tom Cruise together over some Unibroue. :thumbsup:

 

[darkewaffle]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...arks-over-offensive-names-appeals-court-rules

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-disparaging-trademarks-is-unconstitutional/

Interesting and relevant update. Basically a band named "The Slants" had their trademark rejected on the basis that it was disparaging (of Asians) but took it to court and the case eventually made its way to the Federal Circuit of Appeals. The majority opinion of the judges (10-2 or 9-3, depends on the source) was that denial of trademark to "offensive" content was unconstitutional. (The statute used to deny trademark to The Slants is the same one used to revoke/deny the beloved patriot trademark I believe)

Essentially even hurtful speech is protected by the First Amendment. I would agree.

 

[shortylickens]

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...arks-over-offensive-names-appeals-court-rules

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...t-disparaging-trademarks-is-unconstitutional/

Interesting and relevant update. Basically a band named "The Slants" had their trademark rejected on the basis that it was disparaging (of Asians) but took it to court and the case eventually made its way to the Federal Circuit of Appeals. The majority opinion of the judges (10-2 or 9-3, depends on the source) was that denial of trademark to "offensive" content was unconstitutional. (The statute used to deny trademark to The Slants is the same one used to revoke/deny the beloved patriot trademark I believe)

Essentially even hurtful speech is protected by the First Amendment. I would agree.

So long as you dont directly threaten people, free speech should always be the highest freedom.

 

[Thebobo]

The people it refers to consider a disparaging term, which should be enough. Also, the piece of shit who named them the Redskins was a disgusting racist, so the idea that it's a tradition thing is stupid, too. If your heritage and tradition are racist, it's ok to change.

No it shouldn't. Times change chances are No one knows its suppose to be disparaging. Even the Indians have teams with the name Red Skins

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...fc773a-592b-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html

Some others

http://lastrealindians.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/beloved patriot.jpeg

And on and on,..

 

[Chryso]

Essentially even hurtful speech is protected by the First Amendment. I would agree.

Absolutely